King David's Palace Found

More accurately, it confirms the Bible as a collection of myth, poetry, folk history, legend, political propaganda, and theocratic code. But no amount of such confirmation renders the Exodus/Conquest narrative anything other than fable.The ranks of "Biblical Archaeology" have become increasingly polarized. On the one side stand the minimalists, those who see that Tanach as having little or no historical value. On the other side are the so-called "maximalists", those who argue that the Tanach reflects history no matter how poorly. One of the more vocal of the maximalists is William Dever. Though not one of my favorite resources, it's interesting to read his view of the "historical accuracy" of the Bible ...

quote:

---

Let me begin by clarifying which books of the Hebrew Bible I think can be utilized by the would-be historian, whether textual scholar or archaeologist. With most scholars, I would exclude much of the Pentateuch, specifically the books of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, and Numbers. These materials obviously constitute a sort of "pre-history" that has been attached to the main epic of ancient Israel by late editors. All this may be distilled from long oral tradition, and I suspect that some of the stories -- such as parts of the Patriarchal narratives -- may once have had a historical setting. These traditions, however, are overlaid with legendary and even fantastic materials that the modern reader may enjoy as "story," but which can scarcely be taken seriously as history.

​

- What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It? (pg. 97)

​

After a century of exhausive investigation, all respectable archaeologists have given up hope of recovering any context that would make Abraham, Isaac, or Jacob credible historical figures. Virtually the last archaeological word was written by me more than 20 years ago for a basic handbook of biblical studies, Israelite and Judean History. And, as we have seen, archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus has similarly been discarded as a fruitless pursuit. Indeed, the overwhelming archaeological evidence today of largely indigenous origins for early Israel leaves no room for an exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness. A Moses-like figure may have existed somewhere in southern Transjordan in the middle 13th century B.C., where many scholars think the biblical traditions concerning the god Yahweh arose. But archaeology can do nothing to confirm such a figure as a historical personage, much less prove that he was the founder of later Israelite religion. As for Leviticus and Numbers, these are clearly additions to the "pre-history" by very late Priestly editorial hands, preoccupied with notions of ritual purity, themes of the "promised land," and othe literary motifs that most modern readers will scarcely find edifying, much less historical.

​

- ibid (pg. 99)

​

Now let us turn to the biblical data. If we look at the biblical texts describing the origins of Israel, we see at once that the traditional account contained in Genesis through Joshua simple cannot be reconciled with the picture derived above from archaeological investigation. The whole "Exodus-Conquest" cycle of stories must now be set aside as largely mythical, but in the proper sense of the term "myth": perhaps "historical fiction" ...

​

- ibid (pg. 121)

---

There is, by the way, a third group of so-called archaeologists. These are the doctrine-driven Judeo-Christians committed to making their facts conform to their theology. About them Dever writes ...

quote:

---

In retrospect, the demise of biblical archaeology was probably inevitable. The reasons are many. First, what may be called internal weakness of the movement were numerous: its reputation for amateurish fieldwork, naive or biased scholarship, and poor publications; its parochial character, related as it was largely to the conservative (if not Fundamentalist) character of so much of the American religious life; its reactionary nature, locked into dated theological issues, which left it unable to respond creatively to new developments in or outside the field; its resistance to growing trends towards specialization and professionalism, which made it extremely vulnerable; and, above all, the fact that it failed to achieve its own major objective, i.e., the demonstation of the "historicity" of the Bible (at least as it was seen at the time)

​

- ibid

---

Mazar's work on "King David's Palace" may well prove interesting, even very interesting, but nothing more.This message has been edited by Deut. 32.8, 08-16-2005 09:30 PM